Why does the Mushroom killer deserve parole ?

What surprises me is that she chose to kill so many all at once.

Surely if you decide to commit murder, especially in this planned cold blooded way, you do not want to be caught and sent to prison for life. So giving a group of close family members poisoned home cooked food, even if all it does is just make them ill, is bound to draw the authority's attention to the food and the cook.

In fact I do wonder whether her original plan was just to make them ill, so she could enjoy seeing them suffer, but she over did it. The same with the poisoning of her husband, the intention was to enjoy seeing him suffer, rather than to kill him.

Since she has said nothing, we can never know, and the prosecution, obviously would not raise the issue, and presumably the defence couldn't suggest this because she said nothing inher defence.

This certainly wasn’t some temporary moment of madness as it had been meticulously planned for many months.

Then as was pointed out earlier, she had previously tried to poison her husband on a number of occasions.

I guess the true motive will remain a mystery.

Eloethan there are many people in society who are psychopaths, or have psychopathic tendencies. The main behaviour being that they have no empathy with or compassion or understanding of other people's feelings.

Most people with psychopathy or a tendency that way, will live normal lives for all of their lives, but sometimes something will trigger a dislike of someone or some group, and they can decide that the best way to deal with the problem is to kill them - so they do.

She is by no means a stupid person . She used to be an air traffic controller at one stage of her life apparently. Very,very strange woman. She could have ‘got away with it’ by claiming to have picked the mushrooms thinking they were edible ones,too. Whoever knows what was going through her mind ?

I agree- without knowing anything except what is in the media I would say there may have been some simmering resentment that had taken hold and there were no counter-forces to stop her.

It is for me one of the keenest expressions of mediocrity- she blended in and no one noticed her until she did something so outrageous that she believed she could get eternal notoriety.

It isn't those we percieve as 'bad' we have to look out for, but those who appear to be just like us.

Eloethansurely we have to ask ‘why now’ she had known these people for donkey years I don’t for a minute think she was mentally ill there is nothing to suggest that If she was mentally ‘insane’ as you put it, it would suggest she had a brainstorm in those few days before, but she planned
this to the last tee which to me suggests she had been brewing some hatred for these people for a long time and it built up and built up
She was very calm with it all, it wasn’t just a hotheaded mad moment. It could have all grown in her head over something small

You are completely misinterpreting what I meant. Obviously, people who are mentally ill are no more dangerous than any sane person. In fact, it is usually the person who is ill who is a danger to themselves rather than others.

However, as it has already been pointed out that this woman apparently had no particular axe to grind with various members of her family and appeared to be quite fond of them, surely that points to someone who is insane? Or do you subscribe to the "born evil" theory?

I agree- it also suggests that mentally ill people are more likely to commit murder, but there is no evidence for this.

Sometimes very sane people do very bad things and we shouldn't make excuses for them.

Eloethan

I think she must be mentally ill - and if deemed to be so when it comes to parole I think it is very unlikely it will be granted.

You do not have to be mentally ill to commit crimes like this, otherwise everyone who committed any sort of crime would have some level of mental health problem.

No- you do a disservice to people who are mentally ill. Maybe she has some sort of personailty disorder, but mental illness?

There is no evidence.

I think she must be mentally ill - and if deemed to be so when it comes to parole I think it is very unlikely it will be granted.

It couldn't be reported at the trial, but she had been poisoning her ex husband over a few years, once so severely he was put into an induced coma and nearly died. It was linked to food she had prepared for him, but no proof. He didn't tell anyone else about it which is now a source of regret as she has killed others.

Speculation about something like this might be fruitless, but it is natural, I think.

I am always surprised when people see a minimum prison term as a total sentence. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the system should know that being eligible for parole is not a guarantee of release, and that the parole system is in place for a reason.

It sounds like a story from Midsomer Murders.

The judge accepted in his sentencing that there was no identifiable motive for what she did, and she had offered none. So speculating about what it might have been is fruitless.

Parole board - not herd!

I have given info about parole herd in the UK by the way - buy o doubt it's very different.

I too am puzzled about her motive as she was obviously on reasonably friendly terms with her ex in-laws and their friends, for them to accept her invitation to lunch.

I did read though that she had inherited a fairly large sum of money at some point in the past, but I’m not sure if that is in any way relevant.

This has been such a fascinating case, hasn’t it?

I am surprised she didn't receive a whole life order, but I doubt she would get parole anyway.

She will have to wait 33 years first. And I believe parole is only granted if it is felt she no longer poses a threat to society. Presumably by that time she will be at least in her late 70's.

I agree with everyone who has pointed out that "parole" in this case is more or less academic.
Presumably the possibility of parole is part of the process in this type of case according to the Australian legal system.

What utterley baffles me in this case is her motive. Why on earth has she murdered people that she supposedly liked and who at the least had done her no harm??

The only survivor had forgiven her the attempt on his life.

She won’t survive that long in an Australian jail.

Being "considered for parole" is exactly that. First you must choose to apply and make a case. Then there's all the reports and then the parole board, and then, because of the length and seriousness of the offence (if you are serving 15 years or more) the decision on release is taken by the Home Secretary. Obviously they take into consideration the views of the Board’s recommendation but release at 33 years is by no means a done deal.

I don't understand this post or OP's point.

I'm glad someone else has shown this woman will most likely never be released.

Sarnia

She will be 83 when her first chance at parole comes around. Anything could happen to her during the next 33 years.

Especially if she is kept in solitary confinement